Rear window camera footage

[Rickn55]

Hi, just looking for peoples thought on the quality of my rear window camera footage, for me it looks out of focus and poor quality, it is struggling to pick plates up most of the time, in comparison to my 522 which was crystal clear, I've exchanged the rear camera and wiring so it can't be that at fault as it would be unlikely to have two faulty camera units, so I'm guessing my 622 is a lemon itself? As my pals footage is crystal clear like my 522, see video comparisons below. I'm not massively happy with the quality of footage from my 622 at the moment and considering sending it back, wondering if anybody else has any footage from there's they could share to compare? Mine 75% of the time is poor and can barely make plates out, sometimes like in the 2nd video it is ok but still not 100% like the 522. Be interesting to hear thoughts as I've had a mixed bag from Nextbase one person said they can see what I mean and another on Email said it was fine..

 

[Rickn55]

My pals 622 rear window cam footage, looks better than mine?

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

 

[kamkar]

Yeah both of those 622 cameras have a "soft" feel to them, the 522 look much better indeed.
Even if the 522 soundtrack make me want to empty my tin of assorted nails and screws onto my computer table and then violently bang my head into them.

 

[Rickn55]

Yeah both of those 622 cameras have a "soft" feel to them, the 522 look much better indeed.
Even if the 522 soundtrack make me want to empty my tin of assorted nails and screws onto my computer table and then violently bang my head into them.

Yes I am guessing there is a problem in the software of the 622 as it all works fine with 522. Hoping Nextbase get it sorted ASAP for us with the rear window camera as I know how good the rear window cam quality should be and this with the 622 isn't.

After watching that 522 video back with my speakers on I'm surprised I didn't bounce the windows out of the car...

 

[mperry2805]

Hi, this is the footage from my rear camera, plugged into my 622. I have to say, I'm a little underwhelmed (to say the least) at the quality compared against the quality I experienced with my 522.

Number plates don't appear readable until the car behind is too close, or stationary. As Rickn55 has said, the same camera plugged into a 522 produced much better results?

I'm hoping this is a firmware / software issue on the 622, which Nextbase are able to resolve soon!

 

[Nextbase Support]

Hi, this is the footage from my rear camera, plugged into my 622. I have to say, I'm a little underwhelmed (to say the least) at the quality compared against the quality I experienced with my 522.

Number plates don't appear readable until the car behind is too close, or stationary. As Rickn55 has said, the same camera plugged into a 522 produced much better results?

I'm hoping this is a firmware / software issue on the 622, which Nextbase are able to resolve soon!

Hi Mark,

I've responded to your IM, looking forward to your response.

Thanks,
Dan - Nextbase Technical Support

 

[Rickn55]

Hi, this is the footage from my rear camera, plugged into my 622. I have to say, I'm a little underwhelmed (to say the least) at the quality compared against the quality I experienced with my 522.

Number plates don't appear readable until the car behind is too close, or stationary. As Rickn55 has said, the same camera plugged into a 522 produced much better results?

I'm hoping this is a firmware / software issue on the 622, which Nextbase are able to resolve soon!

Fingers crossed this will get sorted as it seems like the software on the 622 needs a tweak by the software boffins some how, as being the same fault on two different units now and as said I've tried two totally different rear window cameras and wiring with mine and no luck, hopefully this can be sorted so the quality on the 622 is as good as on the 522 which you expect being the top of the range model!

 

[kamkar]

There is no doubt the settings of the cameras have a say, in how a image are perceived in general the sharpness contrast are often high, and the modders are often targeting this first.
It also vary in between brands, i can clearly remember when i got my first SG camera, as i had been using a Lukas system for a while i was used to its rather strong sharpness and contrast, so the SG camera felt kind of off to me, and it is not eve like the SG camera was a "softy" just was a bit compared to others back in the day.
So the parameters for the rear camera might well be a little off.
A example on this ( making hard softer ) in regard to the A139 have been posted here.

 

[Rickn55]

There is no doubt the settings of the cameras have a say, in how a image are perceived in general the sharpness contrast are often high, and the modders are often targeting this first.
It also vary in between brands, i can clearly remember when i got my first SG camera, as i had been using a Lukas system for a while i was used to its rather strong sharpness and contrast, so the SG camera felt kind of off to me, and it is not eve like the SG camera was a "softy" just was a bit compared to others back in the day.
So the parameters for the rear camera might well be a little off.
A example on this ( making hard softer ) in regard to the A139 have been posted here.

Yes see what you mean there, the quality of the one on the left is excellent.

 

[kamkar]

Yeah the difference is clear to see, but even now i often fall for the harder more contrast picture, but softening things up actually make things better with small details too, even if it feel more soft.

Not least on the bottom example can you see a difference in detail, look at the little triangular yellow marker on the box, on the left you can barely see anything but a yellow blob and there is distortion on the box too, on the right you see things much better, even that there is a keyhole there.
The left ones with factory ( street guardian ) firmware are actually a mess compared to what it could be

 

[Rickn55]

Yeah the difference is clear to see, but even now i often fall for the harder more contrast picture, but softening things up actually make things better with small details too, even if it feel more soft.

Not least on the bottom example can you see a difference in detail, look at the little triangular yellow marker on the box, on the left you can barely see anything but a yellow blob and there is distortion on the box too, on the right you see things much better, even that there is a keyhole there.
The left ones with factory ( street guardian ) firmware are actually a mess compared to what it could be

Yes for sure, the softer one on the right does seem to capture more detail in this instance.

I took my Dashcam out the other day on 1440p as advised by Nextbase to see if it makes any difference to the rear cam quality issue, which it didn't. Hopefully will get sorted soon. :-D

[

 

[Rickn55]

3 months on, still no news of the fix you were meant to be working on Nextbase? You've had a good amount of time now..

I paid for the flagship 622 to use in 4K, but the 4K is that poor on it especially when the rear cam is in I'm having to use it at 1080p so the quality is better and the rear cam works in an acceptable quality. I bought a 4K cam to work out of the box with a rear cam fine as advertised not to have to pay a premium for 4K to then have to run it at 1080p. I feel you've just fobbed me off with the emails and messages as said above you've had 3months now and still nothing..

Pretty poor if you ask me.

Sent from my moto e(6) plus using Tapatalk

 

[Nextbase Support]

Hi Rick,

Our Development Team are currently testing a fix to the issue above.
I apologise for the time it takes for testing to be undertaken and completed, but we always strive to ensure our firmware releases are robust and fully functional.

Kind regards,
Millie

Nextbase Technical Support

 

[Rickn55]

It's taking them long enough though? 3 months don't you think?

End of the day the product shouldn't have been released and sold if it's not fit for purpose which the 622 currently clearly isn't. If I knew Nextbase were going to drag their feet this long sorting the issue, it makes me kind of regret not sending it back within the 30days of purchasing for a refund tbh.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

 

[Trax95008]

I reported this issue back on 8/21/20. They have known about it for at least 10 months! Saying that they want to be sure their firmware is “robust and fully functional” is a load of crap! How does that explain the current release which is NOT robust or fully functional”??? This is the pic I gave them back on 8/29/20 comparing the image from the rear cam. The pic on the left is much sharper than the right. The clear image is when the 622 is set to 1440 and the blurry image is when set to 4K

 

[el_viejo]

i have the same problem with my 622gw + rear windshield cam. i bought it second hand but the cam came unused in a sealed package, originally bought in august 2020. i did not test the 622gw in 1080p but 4k and 1440p. both front cam resolutions give me quite the same softened rear cam video. there is not much of a difference. anyway, i hope this is fixable by a new firmware and is not due to bad/wrong hardware components or even worse by design.

 

[Rickn55]

Well Nextbase it seems like quite a few people are suffering from the same poor quality rear camera footage when the front is set at 4K. As said previously what is the point in paying a premium for a 4K capable camera if you can't use it in 4K. After various emails being fobbed off by utter bull**** each time saying they're working on a fix, 4 months on there is still no fix and doesn't look like there will be. I suggest to anyone scanning the forum and thinking of buying a Nextbase not too and to go and buy another brand! I won't be buying again that's for sure, they've handled this very poorly, it's not as if they haven't had enough time. I mean 4 months!!!

 

[el_viejo]

there is some small signs of hope on their website. a few days ago nextbase replaced a lot of user manuals from r5.1 to r7. this might indicate there is a new firmware about to be released. nevertheless, as of today there is still v6.4 as the most current one.

 

[Nextbase Support]

Hi all,

The new 622GW firmware which resolves the Rear Window Camera resolution issue that some of your have been encountering is being staged released today.

You should all be able to access the firmware over the next week via the MyNextbase Connect phone app, the MyNextbase Player computer app or on the Nextbase Support 622GW page. The app is on staged release, and will increase by 10% of users daily until reaching 100%. If you'd like to install the firmware sooner than your apps have the firmware update available, please contact support@nextbase.com and we can email the firmware files to you.

Thank you so much to you all for your patience in this matter and for providing various details to our Development Teams to ensure this matter was resolved.

Kind regards,
Millie
Nextbase Technical Support

 

[Rickn55]

About time, been waiting 6 months for this, been running my camera which I purchased for 4K recording at 1080p since then just so the rear cam footage was watchable. Hopefully now it should be all good in 4K, will go out for some footage this weekend and see what it's like.